Modeling in the oil and gas industry is important to maximizing return on investment. Such modeling includes the modeling of formations, as well as the modeling of drilling and extraction systems used to recover hydrocarbons from formations. One important aspect of any such model is to understand the effects of changes to various model parameters as depth changes. For example, one might model how a change in drilling mud density might affect the drill string penetration rate at a particular depth. As depth of investigation changes, the most optimum parameters for that particular depth may change. Additionally, or alternatively, the significance of particular parameters may change with depth. In other words, one set of analyses and parameters may be most significant for a first depth, while a different set of analyses and parameters may be most significant for a second depth.
Organizing and visualizing the results of each of the analyses performed for a given depth or hole-section of a modeled well where different operational parameters are applied is difficult and tedious with excessive work load for the end user. One option to avoid such an approach is to select analyses for the entire length of a modeled wellbore and utilize for those analyses equations one set of parameters and parameter values across the entire wellbore. In such case, typically, a user may select the parameter values to simulate the worst case scenario for a wellbore. The resulting visual representation is a single plot along the entire length of the modeled wellbore. Often, this plot may be significantly different at any given depth from a more accurate model of the wellbore.
Another approach is to perform analysis at a plurality of select depth intervals. Typically, a user first must select the different depth intervals for analysis. Then the particular analyses or calculations to be performed at that depth are selected. Next, a set of input values for the equations utilized in the analyses are entered and results are computed. The results of the analyses is then presented in a visual representation that is “frozen” or saved as a “snapshot.” The user must then change the input parameter values and repeat the visual representation process. The forgoing will result in a plurality of snapshots for any given depth, leaving the user to keep track of which snap shot corresponds to which particular set of values among the analyses. The most desired snapshot for any given depth may then be selected and compiled into a roadmap for the overall wellbore. In addition to the drawbacks discussed above, such a process requires prolonged iteration time and inhibits updates to the models when performing design changes on the fly.
The complexity of the foregoing procedure increases as other analyses and string operations are performed simultaneously. It is difficult to keep track of different depth ranges, sets of specific parameters for each of the depth intervals, and analyses or operation types.